For 25 years I’ve watched outcome measurement in the public sector drift into a dangerous cul-de-sac. What started as a way to understand whether we are helping people has been co-opted into a performance game: measures as proof, not as learning.
The belief goes something like this: if only we could find the perfect measure, others would recognise the value of our work, and we could get on with it in peace.
It’s seductive. It’s also false.
1. The Problem with “Proving”
Instead of fostering curiosity, outcome measurement has become a blunt tool for judgement. Reflective conversations about what works, for whom, and why have been displaced by targets. Industries have sprung up around “the measure is king” – creating an illusion that services can be ranked, practitioners compared, and failing ones weeded out by metrics alone.
But progress (or its absence) is too often used to prove or disprove worth, not to ask better questions.
2. The True Intention: Learning
Professionals do have a duty to know whether their work makes a difference. But the true value of outcomes lies in how they help us learn.
A practitioner’s task is not to notch up “successful outcomes,” but to make sense of whether an intervention moved someone closer to what matters to them. What counts as success should be driven by meaning, not by standardised scales.
-
A teacher who knows a child must first feel confident with numbers should measure confidence in numbers—not algebra scores.
-
A social worker should test whether a family feels safer and more capable, not whether they tick boxes on a pre-defined pathway.
If we get this wrong—if we choose algebra tests when confidence is the issue—we risk doing harm.
3. Reframing Performance
Performance is not about a high tally of outcomes achieved. It is about showing evidence of reflective practice—how practitioners interpret outcomes, learn from them, and adapt their next hypothesis.
In other words:
-
Outcomes = signals, not verdicts.
-
Measures = tools, not ends.
-
Worth = willingness to learn, not ability to prove.
4. The Measure Must Fit the Intention
Validated tools have their place. But their real validity lies in how skilfully practitioners select and use them. The danger comes when we twist intentions to fit the measure, rather than the other way round.
If we are serious about improving lives, outcome measurement must shift from a culture of proving to a culture of learning.